Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well I think this is great. Not necessarily agreeing with all of the rulings, but it is important to have everyone aware of the rules so they are all on the same page.

Adepticon is huge, and it is drawing players from all over the country. No other event like this has been like this before.

Even when GW had GTs, the 40K players did not travel, and so you were playing with players for you local area, maybe an extended area, but generally not over 300 miles. (Fantasy is different because the top players travel the country for GTs).

When you have a lot of people playing each other from across the country (and other countries as well) you play with house rules and conventions that you are not even aware of, or even thought about. But there are many rules out there that people play differently.

For example, I live in Los Angeles and no one plays that if you deep strike on friendly models they are removed. It would have never crossed my mind. But it is good to know these rules so that when we come out there and play, we can adjust our play style and meta-game accordingly.

At Adepticon last year I played people from Georgia (Chip from NATO was a great guy), South Carolina, Mississippi, Ohio, Toronto, and of course all over the Chicago area.

For example, at last Adepticon I was playing against a Space Wolf Player from Toronto that had a lot of tornados. I could draw LOS to the models, but not the base. He said that I could not shoot them because you have to draw LOS to the base. I told him that it was not a base, it was just a flying stand to keep it upright, and you draw LOS to the actual vehicle model. I could not prove my point by the rulebook so I let it go, and it cost me the game.

Ghaz - Yes, the FAQ is correct in that the Psycannon vs Turbo-Boosting bikes has been covered by GW, but it's a situation that never would have come up in the first place had they just put 'in addition' in the first place.

As this is their FAQ I think they should fix what is clearly an oversight on GW's part.

BYE

Everyone here who has posted feedback about this FAQ should also send that information to the email address provided in the initial post.

I just sent off a big 'ole email to them, and the more people who notice errors or stuff that's unclear the better.

Posted By Kalamadea on 09/05/2006 5:56 PM
Except that you are not paying to twin-link a weapon, you are paying for 2 seperate weapons, much as lascannon sponsons on a predator are not merely twin-linked. This is not the same as Tau, for example, that specifically say the two weapons count as twin-linked and pay a reduced price compared to buying the same weapon twice.

That's not a problem with their FAQ, that's a problem with the 'Nid Codex. GW thought that a Twin-Linked weapon was twice as good, so you pay for 2 guns yet don't get 2 guns. Idiots, as usual, but don't blame the AdeptiCon guys for that. That is literally how it is written.

BYE

Good work doing GW's job! 

 

Most of it was obviously needed but one thing did jump out at me as more of a house rule than a clarification. "full disclosure" for transports despite what the rulebook says...what's up with that?

 

Lazarus.

Most of it was obviously needed but one thing did jump out at me as more of a house rule than a clarification. "full disclosure" for transports despite what the rulebook says...what's up with that?

You can't run a tournament any other way.

Sure you can. You just insist people write it down and mark their vehicles.

What difference does it make anyways? If you are paying attention to their deployment you know what might be in the transports. Besides, you have to exchange lists anyways so you'll also be able to tell there as well.

Capt K

http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23888&b=1&st=&p=&#entry

For the people that msged me.

Combination of official, EoT, GW GT FAQs as well as quite a few from Dakka.

Designed for use in Australian Tournaments

I hear that Portent (Warseer?) is also doing there own and Sweden has done there own FAQs (the gamining community, not the GW ones I leaked)

Maybe this is another aspect of the hobby; painting, modeling, gaming, fluff and now game developers?

Posted By Aeon on 09/06/2006 5:56 AM
http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23888&b=1&st=&p=&entry

For the people that msged me.

Combination of official, EoT, GW GT FAQs as well as quite a few from Dakka.

Designed for use in Australian Tournaments

I hear that Portent (Warseer?) is also doing there own and Sweden has done there own FAQs (the gamining community, not the GW ones I leaked)

Maybe this is another aspect of the hobby; painting, modeling, gaming, fluff and now game developers?

 

Begun, the FAQ wars has... 

Quite funny HBMC. In the first answer you insist that Adepticon should "fix" the psycannon vs turbo boosting bike rule, and then say that twin-linked nid weapons is ok because it is literally written that way. Isn't the psycannon rule pretty straight forward vs turbo boosting? If you are going to start doing "fixes" where do you stop?

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 09/06/2006 12:03 AM

Ghaz - Yes, the FAQ is correct in that the Psycannon vs Turbo-Boosting bikes has been covered by GW, but it's a situation that never would have come up in the first place had they just put 'in addition' in the first place.

As this is their FAQ I think they should fix what is clearly an oversight on GW's part.

BYE

But they didn't and they did not change the rule because of one weapon.

The difference Toreador is that the over-sight that led to double-costed Twin-Linked weapons in the 'Nid Codex is all contained within the same book. The Psycannon vs Turbo-Boost came about from a rule change later on, long after the Psycannon rules had been written.

The TL problem in the 'Nid Codex is stupid, but it wasn't caused by some other change of rule that was meant to fix another problem but in turn ended up screwing a unit over. Bikes, with their 3+ armour saves, were given a boost (pun not intended) with the turbo-boost rules... but as a byproduct became more vulnerable to Psycannons.

BYE

To me it would look like both would be an over-sight, but who are we to say?

They knew when they made the rule that they had weapons out there that ignored invulnerable saves only and yet they still wrote the rule as is. It is our reality vs a game mechanic. Who is to say what is right? They never changed their stance on that one either and even defended it.

Same with the Tyranid book. Both maybe over-sights, but maybe not. Who is it for us to say? In the end result you are picking and choosing what rule you think should be changed. So where does that stop ? A lot of that is personal opinion. They are not attempting to change rules, but to clarify.

They are not attempting to change rules, but to clarify.

i disagree with that statement.they said they were not always using RAW so they are in fact changeing rules to fit their ideas.

for example: Medipack in the imperial guard codex clearly state "ignore the first wound in every turn."

while they have changed the rule to :
Q: Can a Narthecium or Medi-pack be used in both players’ turns or just once per game turn?
A: Once per game turn.

thats a huge change for the medic as he just became 1/2 as effective. i admit  he wasnt very effective before, but still. this is one area that didnt need any clarification as there are numerous examples of "once per turn",once during your turn" or once "during the enemys turn" but this item clearly says "during ANY turn"...

the problem for that one is the definition of a turn, when a turn is mentioned does it refer to a players turn or a game turn? nobody knows except whoever wrote the codex b/c the wording is ambiguous

Toreador, I see where you might be coming from, but do not agree with you. What HBMC is saying, is that the Turbo/Psycannon rule effects something in a way that was never intended. It fixed one thing while breaking another.

The TL issue is something that does not effect any other codex. No unit/rule, as the Devs forsaw, was broken when they wrote the Nid Codex. The same can not be said for the Turbo issue.

Not really an issue for me either way since I don't use either army. Atleast the Adeptiboyz took some initiative and tried to fill in the gap left by the design team. Anyone else think the GW FAQ writers are a bit embarassed by this Adepti-tome?

Posted By Flagg07 on 09/06/2006 11:16 AM
Toreador, I see where you might be coming from, but do not agree with you. What HBMC is saying, is that the Turbo/Psycannon rule effects something in a way that was never intended. It fixed one thing while breaking another.

Psycannons existed before the Turboboost rule was introduced. When I first heard of the turboboost rule change, I wrote about it on the Eye Of Terror: how can fast-moving bikes becoming suddenly vulnerable to psycannons? Shouldn't have the rule written "in addition" rather than "instead of"? I had a reply from Mr. Hoare basically saying "well, it's easier this way. It's not like Psycannons are a common sight anyway..."

He was already RAW, for sure... :(

I replied that such a badly written rule would not be "simple" but only cause arguments over its stupidity, and its presence in the Adepticon FAQ simply proves that clarity is not where GW Designers hope it to be.

jeremycobert I can still see that as a clarification of what is meant by turn, not a rules change. But, again, all of this is opinion.

and I along with Kortrin remember them defending their position on the psycannon. They explained it as a game mechanic, not real world. It was an unfortunate effect. They were unwiling to change it or FAQ it and if I remember right took that position in an early FAQ. So to do anything but follow it as written would require a rule change. I may not like it, as well as the twin linked Nid rules, but just because I don't like something doesn't mean it should be changed.

In ways that is the difference between a FAQ and House Rules. I believe the Adeptus are trying to create an FAQ.

Can I please reiterate that this is a BETA FAQ.

If you don't like something they judged on, e-mail thme, find a convincing arguement and e-mail them.

It's that simple people. Everything they ruled on is subject to change.

You should be eternally grateful that they decided to do this for the gaming community, not whining because one of your interpretations came out wrong. Or getting into arguments with posters over rules disputes.

Furthermore, any FAQ done will require a slight rules change, especially when two rules are incompatible. At least this way, you know what you are getting inot when you attend Adepticon, and won't have somebody pull wierd rules interpretations on you in games there. This only enhances the gaming experiance.

I commend the Adepticon Council for doing such a great job on this Beta. Now about those Rapid-Fire rules.

Posted By Flagg07 on 09/06/2006 11:16 AM
...in a way that was never intended.

That's just it.

You cannot validly claim to know what the intent was.

 

Perhaps the loss of the regular save was what was intended. Perhaps it is intended to show the increased hazard of driving at such a high speed. Perhaps it is intended to balance out the increased movement benefit.

I'm not saying that's the case, or that I agree or disagree with it, but the simple fact is that we don't know and can usually never know designer's intent.

 

I don't have a problem with the Adepti-faq, its their tournie and they can do whatever they want. They must make such rulings beforehand so that everything runs smoothly. But in the end it's against RAW, and that's a valid thing for people to complain about.

I still think that if your vehicles are clearly marked and the contents written down it should be good enough......Either way, I still commend them on the effort of such an undertaking.

 

Lazarus.

Nice work. A for effort. It would be nice knowing before hand what position judges will take during tournements and have it in black and white instead of the dice over it when things become to heated. GW has refused to do a inclusive faq update. Maybe they will take notice and finally take action. That's been the biggest gripe among our veteran group of gamers since 4th first came out. Some still swear by 3rd and are playing less and less and have gone over to FOW or Warmachine. In hindsight I am starting to think 3rd was a better rules write also. Thier were definatly a lot less arguments over rules interpretations.

Posted By Centurian99 on 09/06/2006 5:14 AM

Most of it was obviously needed but one thing did jump out at me as more of a house rule than a clarification. "full disclosure" for transports despite what the rulebook says...what's up with that?

You can't run a tournament any other way.

According to the GT rules, that's the way it has to be done there.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, had to get that out.

I agree with C99. The 3rd edition rules sucked giant porno nuts...

There may be things that I don't agree with, but this FAQ is in it's BETA stage and Adepticon is not until March....By seeing this now, you have plenty of time to make adjustments...of which, aren't really game breaking...so I really don't see what people are getting so pissed about. At least you know what you are getting into.

Capt K

That seems to be a clarification to the question and not an actual change. As SirNotInThisFilm stated the definition of 'turn' is in question as there as many different references to 'turn' in the rulebook.

In all, I LOVE THIS... granted I may not agree to some of them BUT AT LEAST THEY HAVE THE NUTS TO TAKE A STAND!!!!

I am seriously considering going to Adepticon as my first ever 'Con'. I've been through and to and judged RTT's, but never a Gamesday or a Con......

very nice.

 

EDIT: Question. on the Mystics ability clarification, if the drop pod is destroyed does the unit inside take wounds as if they were inside the vehicle (i.e. 4+) or are they only hit by an "explosion" result on the damage chart?

here's a thought.. take this beta rules FAQ (change) right to the damn source and end it all.. rather than a bunch of people that think they know what it should be, why not sit down with the developers in a round table environment and hash it out.. obviously you (and i mean the ones responsible for the FAQ) think you know the rules better than the guys that wrote them, so, take up you pen and sword and go to the developers with this and let them know how you feel?

as Ed has mentioned about oh 10 times at least, there are quite a few cases where you have taken some pretty big leaps from the collective pool of the rules.. I know it's good to get the rules and how they will be used in the tourney, but why stop there? why not take this FAQ and challenge GW with it.. Or, is it what i feared when i first read it, a big ego dump to one up GW and thumb your noses at the developers and say you know best from afar, safe behind your keyboards where you can look down at the rest of us schmucks that don't agree with you?

Congratulations on putting together one of the bigger tournaments for 40K.. awesome.. the rules will not be able to be seen any other way.. but if you feel the need to do such a large FAQ, why not take it to the source and see just how close or far off you are..? ....

Posted By two heads talking on 09/07/2006 9:54 AM
...obviously you (and i mean the ones responsible for the FAQ) think you know the rules better than the guys that wrote them...

That's a very petty thing to say.  The biggest problem most "fans" have is that GW has so far refused to do anything about the perceived problems with the game and codices.  The guys at Adeptecon are making an effort to clarify points of contention and have asked for a critique of their FAQ, not for snide comments about their motives.  You're entitled to your preferences, but don't go busting someone else's chops for trying to "patch the holes" so to speak.

And already the gaming groups around KC are picking this up as an official unofficial FAQ for play. Discussion is already on about using it for RT tournies. I think if something is presented to a wide enough audience and adopted by them it could cause GW to get to work.

It's also nice to have one document, official or not, by an organization willing to put for the effort.

Hats off to them!